Open Letter to BSA in Defense of the Hacker Scouts

My letter to the Boy Scouts of America concerning it litigious actions against the Hacker Scouts - 

Re: BSA's threat to sue Hacker Scouts. 

I have two boys, ages 6 & 8, who have become interested in becoming scouts. Having been a member for a short time during the late 1980's I was on the fence due to many of the recent socio-political spats. I understand these issues' complexity and conundrum and have tried to see both sides and give you the benefit of the doubt. 

Now I read that you are going after folks who use the word scout in their organizations, such as the Hacker Scouts. I see no way in which the HS is trying to deliberately or indirectly cause confusion with the general public by using the name Scout. I find it appalling that the BSA leadership would take such action. 

Your actions remind me of the outrageous litigious actions of the then-named Monster Cable company - if you are unfamiliar with this much-despised episode in the Audio Visual world, suffice it to say that the company appeared to make a business model out of suing companies, any company, which included the name monster in it. The company claimed infringement and possible marketplace confusion from MonsterJobs.com to Monster Vintage clothes or Mini Golf. What Monster Cable seemed to really be doing is bullying these companies- mostly mom n' pop places- to pony up a fee to licence the name Monster. The actions may have earned them some revenue and 'marketplace security' but also made them an albatross for dealers and the subject of ridicule among knowledgeable consumers.

I fear this will be your result as well. 

I ask that you and your cabal of lawyers retract the threat and apologize for your bullying. Until then, I will advocate for these alternatives to BSA and against yours. 

Thank You for your consideration. 

In Their Words... Review of Live Sound Design, Build Your Career as a Sound Engineer

Originally posted to AVNation and AVShout - July 30th, 2013

Author: Nathan Lively
Price: $7.95 / 8.95 depending on reader format                        

Format: e-reader

We humans have found many ways to communicate. Our infinite creativity has provided us the written word, sign language, slang, and long-distance forms such as semaphores, smoke signals, and ‘talking’ drums.  All these forms have been updated and adapted to be preserved and exposed to a wider audience as the medium has evolved, from books to radio to blogs and texts.  It can be argued that while technological platforms have enabled us to distribute information with greater efficiency to more people at astounding speed, the very nature of its speed erodes the natural flow of conversation.  Regardless of our language, this oral dialog is the most comfortable and impactful to our little grey cells.

Oral histories are also the most poignant, conveying a feeling of being there with a rhythm and tenor of the speaker through which you could feel what it was like to be there. Two of my favorite books about music are Legs McNeil’s ‘Please Kill Me’ and Jon Wiederhorn’s “Louder Than Hell’ - both of these books have a subtitle of ‘An Oral History of ....”.  In the case of Legs, it is about the early days of Punk, and Wiederhorn’s is about Heavy Metal.  The books take interviews from various magazines with musicians, writers and scene makers over several years.  The Trick here is that the statements have been taken from the larger interviews and placed in the appropriate chronological timeline. This technique provides a flow of conversation and perspectives on an event by disparate interviews into a dialog making the events come ‘alive’ and not just a formal recap.   

In a very similar fashion Nathen Lively a sound designer and live audio engineer, a frequent guest on AVNation.tv podcasts and who has his own very good show - Sound Design Live,  just published an e-book that follows the same oral history methodology. In the book “Live Sound Design, Build Your Career as a Sound Engineer”, Nathan has taken the transcripts of interviews from two years of producing his show to create a conversation on topics ranging from tools and techniques to the relationships of building a career.  The book is NOT an ivory tower thesis on audio theory nor a product placement webinar on ‘Better Audio Techniques’.  While the textbooks and manufacturing seminars can be beneficial, the apprenticeship-like relationship provides usable tools and practical knowledge.   

I was particularly taken with the section on ‘Working with Technical Limitations’, which focuses on building systems with limitations such as budget, available gear, or space.  I also really enjoyed Pierre Dupree of the Alley Theater in Houston discussion on minimalist microphones set up in an 800-seat venue. The two pieces are quite refreshing and reminded me of an interview in EQ magazine with Rudy Van Gelder, who, much to the writer's chagrin, would not talk about specific mic models but only types of microphones to be used for an application. At the time the article was a game changer where I stopped looking at model names and focused on learning technique.  The book has interesting sections on remote access to controls, mixing with computers vs physical decks, business networking, webcasting, and more.  

If I had to lay criticism, it would only be my preference to have the cast of characters introduced at the beginning and the ‘speakers’ laid directly one after the other like a play - each with their name and lines in order.  This would be more in line with Nathan’s background in theater.  It is but a small point and most likely goes unnoticed by anyone else.

If you are looking for a book to take you step by step through learning a specific technique, this book is not for you.  If you want an insight into the world of live sound and design, the types of people who can become resources, and the pros and cons of some hot-button techniques, then this book will fill your head with great ideas. Be sure to purchase a copy then read some of his great articles and check out the podcast, you’ll be glad you did.

An Open Marriage; Trust in publications in an age of open infidelity

Originally Published on Chris Neto's 'AV Shout'  on July 25, 2013

 I have been brooding for much too long on the subject of CNET's tumble at CES. I tried to stay away from the topic, but it kept gnawing at me, eating away the lining of my stomach and lapping up the brain fluid in my cranium.  

Chris Brogan, the social marketing svengali, wrote a book a few years back entitled 'Trust Agents, and I am reminded of its central tenets as well as the book this one has as a foundation, namely the Cluetrain Manifesto. Mr. Brogan's book exalts the humanizing of business through social media's power to build relationships. Part of this relationship is a cultural contract that requires the dismantling of secrets and breaking the fourth wall. When used as a tool grounded in truth, it can help you trump your competitors regardless of their size and war chest. Trust is a valuable commodity that, once trampled upon, risks the vehement vitriol of those duped.  

Trust is also the tool of hucksters and scammers. How often have we heard victims of the Madoffs, local grifters, and assorted snake oil salesmen say something akin to "...I just felt I could trust him..."? A successful charlatan will take great pains to gain your confidence, appear as if your concerns are theirs, and play off our universal expectations of what a villain should look like - Twirling his thin handlebar mustache, grinning devilishly. Whatever the form they take from handsome socialite to trade publication - they are a breed of the most foul.

CNET's coverage of CES at the beginning of the year exposed a dichotomy in consumer electronics reporting. If you missed this episode, it can be easily summarized: CNET, as part of the awards select committee, included the Dish Network's Hopper Box among the top contenders in its final list. The Hopper box allows Dish Network subscribers to 'hop' through commercials while watching a show, much like the Tivo fast-forward function, but the Dish box jumps a predetermined time of 30 to 60 seconds. CBS Network, which acquired CNET for 1.8 billion in the early summer of 2008, instantly began foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog and demanded that the award not be given to Dish Network. (CBS and other traditional broadcast networks fear the hopper as it takes yet another bite out of potential ad revenue). While CBS may have a genuine business concern here, they overreacted by forcing an owned entity to return on its journalistic ethics and retract an award (and editorial approval) to satisfy a corporate overlord paranoia.  

This is an unforgivable act that caused a good number of writers and editorial staff to render their resignations. Like millions of others, I sought out CNET for its coverage of breaking products and in-depth reviews of the same. The fracas which followed and CBS's CEO essentially responding with a statement, 'Fuck You, we will tell you what is good or ill, and you will like it with whip cream on top,' cemented my dissolution with the network as a source of anything but fluff. As a result, I also do not watch CBS or any of its affiliate networks, my reasoning being that if they were so flippant with a small tech outlet - what, pray tell, are they doing with the regular news? CNET/CBS also lost the prestige and honor of being an awards panelist, a fall from grace that will echo for some time. (Every year from now on, folks will contrast CNET's CES coverage to their removal from the panel and the cause).

CBS and CNET's newly installed Vichy editorial staff promised to be as committed as ever to honestly reporting on the consumer electronics news and culture. This is a lovely sentiment, but one which is flat-footed and built for sin. The fine folks at both would like us to think that we are witnessing an open marriage where two partners are free to make outside choices that the other will respect with the caveat of no blood, no foul. Yeah Right! The editors and corporate overlords have been reading far, far too many back issues of Forum magazine and have bought into the fanciful delusions of the free love cult. Jealousy eventually gets the best of folks in these situations, with Jacobian melodrama soon following. It is akin to calling your coverage 'fair and balanced' but swearing allegiance to the stockholders before each article.

The AV Integration industry is not the consumer electronics business -despite our overlapping it in the Veen diagrams. In light of the CNET' fustercluck,' we have to view our industry's trade publications with a skewed eye. Or do we?

The pressures on AV Integration periodicals are significant; everyone from the newest startup to the established colossuses all seek coverage of their products and a positive spin. This can, and is often, viewed as a boon to the trades - so much to report on, so many Press Releases to post and comment on! It's a gold mine! Indeed, many of the trades thrive off of this. The problem is that everyone wants 'The Cover' and fewer stories about the competition. The temptation to leverage one coverage and reach into a disguised version of a 'vanity periodical' must be in the back of many publishers and editorial directors' heads. The money to be made in this Tammany Hall journalism is real, but is it happening now? Could it?

Is our industry too small to ever really get away with 'fixing' the best-in-show awards? Who do you trust to provide honest reporting and reviews for the AV Industry and CE?